Upon first consideration it is a sickening thought for me, physician assisted suicide that is. Although I feel uncomfortable even considering it, I believe it is important for people to critically think about the issue, and I appreciate that we have had the opportunity to do so. After watching the movie “Million Dollar Baby” the issue of physician-assisted suicide for the disabled was brought closer to home, so to speak. [If you haven’t seen the movie read no further] As I watched Clint Eastwood, who played Hilary Swank’s boxing trainer, inject a lethal dosage of adrenaline into “his darling, his blood” I could not stop myself from experiencing a surge of emotion. I was touched by the concept of someone whose love runs so deeply, that everyday it is expressed regardless of the circumstances, having to perform active euthanasia because no one else will do so such as medical professionals.
I am having particular difficulty deciding upon where my views lie on this subject matter, however I do not believe that this is necessarily a negative dilemma to be experiencing. This is a topic of great weight that should be considered accordingly before any decisions are made about its legalization. I think the reason it is so difficult for me to take stance on physician assisted suicide is because I am not quite sure with whether I should listen more closely to the logical argument or the emotions and gut feelings I experience when contemplating the issue. While the logical argument appeals to me, let me explain why I feel so deeply divided in regards to this issue.
My grandma suffered a severe stroke close to thirteen years ago. As a result, she was left unable to speak, walk, eat, or move at all for that matter. When I look back a pictures of her a few months following her stroke I noticed that she smiled and that her eyes looked straight into the camera, but when I see her now I do not notice the same cognizance. My grandpa explained to me that her doctors believe she has suffered many more strokes following the initial one, which has only contributed to the severity of her state. My grandfather refuses to place her in an assisted living home, and instead has taken care of her everyday of his life since the day she first suffered her stroke. He is lucky to get out twice a week for a few hours to go grocery shopping or possibly fishing. He lives in a silent world with his wife, his only companion being his small Siamese cat, Rocky. Although my grandpa suffers along with my grandma of her disability, I do not believe, that if given the opportunity he could decide to let her go. When I consider my grandparents’ situation I ask myself, why should they be faced with such a decision? A valid point is made is the Catholic Declaration of Euthanasia that states that the “technological attitude [of this time period] threatens to become an abuse.” Why are we even considering the possibility of killing someone even if the action would be done in order to end this person’s suffering? Does William Toffler, an executive director oh Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation, make valid point when he states that, “the solution to suffering never is to eliminate the sufferer?” Could we possibly be becoming too haughty, considering ourselves to be powerful enough to perform actions that deliberately end someone’s life? Would we be crossing the lines humanity has established? Quite possibly…
However, I realize that it is time for me to stop dancing around the issue and come to a conclusion of what I truly believe.
After great consideration, I believe I have come to a conclusion in my belief. Although, I am not sure I could personally go through with the decision, nor do I believe it is right, I believe that no one but the individual who wishes to die should have a say in what that patient’s future holds. Pieter Admiraal explained it simply when he stated that “It would be improper for doctors or other health care professionals [the state or any organization for that matter] to impose their values and their understanding of pain or suffering on the patient.” Those who wish to die should have the option of doing so. Who are you, we, and me to say that it is unlawful and immoral and pose our own beliefs upon everyone else? Simply because I feel life is precious and that everyday should be enjoyed, me with my ability to walk, talk, and eat, does not mean that my own opinion should be forced upon anyone else. If an individual expresses to their family that, in their state, they wish to appeal for physician-assisted suicide then it should be up to the family members of this individual to take a stand, and if they strongly oppose the decision, to express their concern with their loved one. The family’s opinion is the only one that should be taken into account when making such a monumental decision. This matter is extremely personal, and should therefore be left to the individual it will be effecting most.
A doctor’s active participation in physician-assisted suicide is essential. In situations where the individual wishing to die is disabled to the point where they cannot physically take a pill or inject a lethal dosage of morphine, we are allowing a right that should be extended to all to only certain disable people. If we are to give the opportunity to one disabled individual, then we must give the same right to all. If we are to pass a bill that would allow physician assisted suicide, then let us do it correctly and in a civilized manner. We have trained physicians and modern medicine for a reason, we need them involved in this process. It is barbaric to expect the individuals wanting to end their lives to do it themselves. Come on! We live in the twenty-first century. Not only that, but we need have some sympathy for these poor people.
Some argue that to allow physician assisted suicide would imply that we view disabled people as less valuable, and that as we give them permission to do what they wish with their lives, that we depreciate their worth. When I first heard the argument that if we were to legalize physician-assisted suicide that we might also be devaluing a disabled person’s life, I completely disregarded the concept. After having given the argument some thought, I realized its validity. Would it be wrong if we were to allow disabled, or terminally ill people a right to die even though no one else has the same right? Does it insinuate that we consider their lives less valuable? Perhaps it is an inappropriate matter for human beings to help other human beings die.
After deeper consideration of the issue I have come to the conclusion that physician-assisted suicide is not an issue of indirectly insinuating a disabled person is less valuable, but instead simply granting the individual a right to their own life. In doing so, we show our respect to a human and their capability to make a wise and informed decision about what they wish to do with their lives. It does not devalue the disabled, but rather places more value in the individual and their choice. If we are to ignore the right of a person to a “dignified death,” as Pieter Admiraal explained it, we will also “fail to respect the patient as a self-determining person.”
In regards to a large organization such as the Catholic Church, I do not see it fit for these organizations to extend their views onto everyone else. If the Catholics believe it is wrong to end a life at any stage, then so be it. Let them choose to live their lives to their natural dying day, but, in turn, they should allow other people the same choice. In a decision such as this one, no one else should impose their personal beliefs. Notice that I have not stated my own opinion when it comes to physician assisted suicide? How I would feel if a loved one decided that this was the fate they wanted? I have done this for a reason, to make my point that my own outlook should not matter in the greater scheme of things. Give people the opportunity to make up their own mind, rather than being forced to live under conditions they detest to the extent that they would rather end their life, and give brave doctors like Jack Kevorkian the chance to implement their practice in the light of day rather than as cowards an in fear.
I am having particular difficulty deciding upon where my views lie on this subject matter, however I do not believe that this is necessarily a negative dilemma to be experiencing. This is a topic of great weight that should be considered accordingly before any decisions are made about its legalization. I think the reason it is so difficult for me to take stance on physician assisted suicide is because I am not quite sure with whether I should listen more closely to the logical argument or the emotions and gut feelings I experience when contemplating the issue. While the logical argument appeals to me, let me explain why I feel so deeply divided in regards to this issue.
My grandma suffered a severe stroke close to thirteen years ago. As a result, she was left unable to speak, walk, eat, or move at all for that matter. When I look back a pictures of her a few months following her stroke I noticed that she smiled and that her eyes looked straight into the camera, but when I see her now I do not notice the same cognizance. My grandpa explained to me that her doctors believe she has suffered many more strokes following the initial one, which has only contributed to the severity of her state. My grandfather refuses to place her in an assisted living home, and instead has taken care of her everyday of his life since the day she first suffered her stroke. He is lucky to get out twice a week for a few hours to go grocery shopping or possibly fishing. He lives in a silent world with his wife, his only companion being his small Siamese cat, Rocky. Although my grandpa suffers along with my grandma of her disability, I do not believe, that if given the opportunity he could decide to let her go. When I consider my grandparents’ situation I ask myself, why should they be faced with such a decision? A valid point is made is the Catholic Declaration of Euthanasia that states that the “technological attitude [of this time period] threatens to become an abuse.” Why are we even considering the possibility of killing someone even if the action would be done in order to end this person’s suffering? Does William Toffler, an executive director oh Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation, make valid point when he states that, “the solution to suffering never is to eliminate the sufferer?” Could we possibly be becoming too haughty, considering ourselves to be powerful enough to perform actions that deliberately end someone’s life? Would we be crossing the lines humanity has established? Quite possibly…
However, I realize that it is time for me to stop dancing around the issue and come to a conclusion of what I truly believe.
After great consideration, I believe I have come to a conclusion in my belief. Although, I am not sure I could personally go through with the decision, nor do I believe it is right, I believe that no one but the individual who wishes to die should have a say in what that patient’s future holds. Pieter Admiraal explained it simply when he stated that “It would be improper for doctors or other health care professionals [the state or any organization for that matter] to impose their values and their understanding of pain or suffering on the patient.” Those who wish to die should have the option of doing so. Who are you, we, and me to say that it is unlawful and immoral and pose our own beliefs upon everyone else? Simply because I feel life is precious and that everyday should be enjoyed, me with my ability to walk, talk, and eat, does not mean that my own opinion should be forced upon anyone else. If an individual expresses to their family that, in their state, they wish to appeal for physician-assisted suicide then it should be up to the family members of this individual to take a stand, and if they strongly oppose the decision, to express their concern with their loved one. The family’s opinion is the only one that should be taken into account when making such a monumental decision. This matter is extremely personal, and should therefore be left to the individual it will be effecting most.
A doctor’s active participation in physician-assisted suicide is essential. In situations where the individual wishing to die is disabled to the point where they cannot physically take a pill or inject a lethal dosage of morphine, we are allowing a right that should be extended to all to only certain disable people. If we are to give the opportunity to one disabled individual, then we must give the same right to all. If we are to pass a bill that would allow physician assisted suicide, then let us do it correctly and in a civilized manner. We have trained physicians and modern medicine for a reason, we need them involved in this process. It is barbaric to expect the individuals wanting to end their lives to do it themselves. Come on! We live in the twenty-first century. Not only that, but we need have some sympathy for these poor people.
Some argue that to allow physician assisted suicide would imply that we view disabled people as less valuable, and that as we give them permission to do what they wish with their lives, that we depreciate their worth. When I first heard the argument that if we were to legalize physician-assisted suicide that we might also be devaluing a disabled person’s life, I completely disregarded the concept. After having given the argument some thought, I realized its validity. Would it be wrong if we were to allow disabled, or terminally ill people a right to die even though no one else has the same right? Does it insinuate that we consider their lives less valuable? Perhaps it is an inappropriate matter for human beings to help other human beings die.
After deeper consideration of the issue I have come to the conclusion that physician-assisted suicide is not an issue of indirectly insinuating a disabled person is less valuable, but instead simply granting the individual a right to their own life. In doing so, we show our respect to a human and their capability to make a wise and informed decision about what they wish to do with their lives. It does not devalue the disabled, but rather places more value in the individual and their choice. If we are to ignore the right of a person to a “dignified death,” as Pieter Admiraal explained it, we will also “fail to respect the patient as a self-determining person.”
In regards to a large organization such as the Catholic Church, I do not see it fit for these organizations to extend their views onto everyone else. If the Catholics believe it is wrong to end a life at any stage, then so be it. Let them choose to live their lives to their natural dying day, but, in turn, they should allow other people the same choice. In a decision such as this one, no one else should impose their personal beliefs. Notice that I have not stated my own opinion when it comes to physician assisted suicide? How I would feel if a loved one decided that this was the fate they wanted? I have done this for a reason, to make my point that my own outlook should not matter in the greater scheme of things. Give people the opportunity to make up their own mind, rather than being forced to live under conditions they detest to the extent that they would rather end their life, and give brave doctors like Jack Kevorkian the chance to implement their practice in the light of day rather than as cowards an in fear.